Movement to Repeal 17th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
In America today there is a growing movement seeking to repeal the 17th Amendment. For those of you who aren't familiar with the text, it reads:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."
According to sites like http://www.restorefederalism.org/, this Amendment was designed to help curb corruption, as previous to this people who wanted to be Senators merely had to buy off a certain number of State Legislators (much easier than buying off 51% of the entire electorate). In passing the 17th Amendment, reformists hoped to make it harder for that particular type of corruption to manifest itself. However, argue detractors, all it really did was make government even more removed from the people and the States.
I'm undecided on this and very curious what my friends here at Opposing Views have to say on the issue.
I look forward to the discussion.
-Rhindon
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Google the Great Compromise or The Connecticut Compromise.
If you do, you will get a sense as to why the Constitution established a Senate directed by the states. It is critical to understand the reasons for the original design and the excuses for the 17th Amendment if one is to make an informed decision.
The Articles of Confederation had proven that a confederacy of the States was too weak. The states were scared to death of a union as being to powerful. The struggle among the various states to retain sovereignty was evident in the notes of the constitutional convention.
The great compromise called for a bi-cameral legislature. The house was to represent the people and hold the purse strings. The Senate was to represent State interests and approve executive appointments, treaties etc.
The Executive (Our President) was the foreign representative of the individual states and so all his actions were under scrutiny from the Senate.
This compromise resulted in a hybrid system. It was stronger then a confederacy, but weaker then a union. The 17th Amendment converted that hybrid system into a union of the states.
The result? Unfavorable treaties, unfunded mandates, un declared wars and a Federal Government that bullies the states under the threat of removing funding for programs they fostered upon the states.
Nullification treats the symptoms, A repal of the 17th Amendment would cure much of the disease.
As I came across this post, I saw that you were undecided. So, its worth posting for because it means you are actually a reasonable person, not some intransigent plebe, and if it means this might help, then its worth the cause. The 17th amendment was horrible for the constitutional structure. Progressives at the time used the guise of "democracy," deadlock, corruption, etc. to advance an ideological agenda that had lost to the limitations of the Constitution since the founding. Granted, the fight got "progressively" more overt with time, especially leading immediately up to 1913. However, what happened was a departure in the paradigm from what Americans basically took for granted. Thus, they never even questioned the Beardian, Wilsonian, TRooseveltian progressive consequences of this draconian amendment, and of structure in general. Parchment barriers were not sufficient. Although judicial review is necessary for federalism, it certainly is not sufficient. The indirect election of Senators was also necessary, but not sufficient. We need both judicial review of our structural institutions as well as the coordinating devices that the founders relied upon. Please don't confuse the deliberative importance of this topic with the political entrenchment of "democracy" and voting. Believe me, its far worse for democracy and stability. 1913 was the Dam that allowed the New Deal to come to fruition. What's more is that very time period where we fought against some of the worst evil ideas in the world, would come to be closer to the path we are on ourselves. The 17th amendment sounded too good. Just like today, housing initiatives, college loans, health care , etc, are all emotional, attractive, positive "rights," democracy and voting was played to the American voter above their truly best interest and the structural genius of the republic. The consequences economically, politically, civilly, globally are profound and pervasive. Now, special interests infiltrate Washington DC with unlimited access and no consideration to the property or public choices of the people of each state are even considered. In fact, people don't even realize (perhaps until recently) how much this has effected them. Both the democrats and republicans should support a repeal. I fear it will never happen, but I still like to think the people actually have the ability to have mass deliberation and mobilization when necessary. This is one issue that is necessary. The only people who would not support it, are the neo-conservative progressives and the uber left progressives. It has taken what used to be a filter of 50 states of "corruption" if they can even prove there is any less of it in the states now, and essentially centralized it instead. Now we have Senators confirming Supreme Court Justices as the last protective mechanism for expounding the Constitution and federalism, and yet, the Senators could give a hoot about the proper interpretation of the law because they have no interest in individual liberties, but rather gain power from providing "rights" from the power of their secure seats. By the way, prior to 1913, incumbants over two terms was like 48%, after 92%. Its a natural term limits/campaign finance reform to boot. The cost-benefit analysis is so clear. Besides the obvious arguments, who are you going to trust, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson or Woodrow Wilson and Charles Beard?
"this Amendment was designed to help curb corruption, as previous to this people who wanted to be Senators merely had to buy off a certain number of State Legislators (much easier than buying off 51% of the entire electorate)"...but it seems, ironically, that basically our elected officials buy off the electorate now through pork-barrel projects that waste tax money, and this is how many incumbents attempt to stay in power, a la the Joseph McDades and Robert Byrds of the world. I think I'd favor this repeal - it's a good step back toward the government being a republic instead of a democracy. Remember the quote, "A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."
for polls. I don't think the general population would favor giving away their ability to vote for something they consider so important. Like politicalair said, this is just attention seeking.
recent ruling allowing unlimited (and unreported) campaign contributions, it is hardly likely that this is anything more than someone seeking their 15 mins.
We should be very slow to ever amendment the Constitution. It has stood (and worked) for over 200 years ..... many times we just need to rethink problems, the solution is usually very simple in nature but difficult in practice.
Corruption, especially as it relates to power will always exist, if we close one avenue, it will find the detour.